"Criminals can get guns regardless of the law"[W:684]

[Jerry]

If you have this on hand and it is so clear, why would you not post it in your reply?

Because folks have been trying to report me for spam; it's been posted that often, and you still don't look at it.

 

[haymarket]

Because folks have been trying to report me for spam; it's been posted that often, and you still don't look at it.

Providing a simple link will not get you reported. Feel free to PM me with it if you are afraid of being reported. Or simply tell me the thread and post number and I will go look at it and read it.

 

[Jerry]

Providing a simple link will not get you reported. Feel free to PM me with it if you are afraid of being reported. Or simply tell me the thread and post number and I will go look at it and read it.

I've referred back to post #31 on this thread, 7 times now, 3 of which were to you.

 

[SMTA]

This is contrary to the ruling in Sonzinsky. If there is an intent and effect to tax, then incidental regulatory effects are not material. As right-wingers never seem to tire of telling us under often incongruous circumstances, if you want less of something, tax it. It would seem that they should understand then that all taxes have some sort of regulatory effect, yet they are not illegal. Just another gaping wormhole in typical right-wing thinking.


What a screwy comment! You don't have the right to be able to afford a firearm any more than you have a right to be able to afford a Mercedes.


Well no, not actually.

Everything is calm in the land of Oz, isn't it?

 

[haymarket]

I've referred back to post #31 on this thread, 7 times now, 3 of which were to you.

Thank you. I read it. And what do you think that information proves?

What I read was not at all related to the allegation from Goshin in his post 732 that I asked for proof of that particular intent of.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I've referred back to post #31 on this thread, 7 times now, 3 of which were to you.

Just in the interests of transparency, the article linked to in Post #31 was actually published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is a student-run periodical, and the students who run it are all in fact members of the conservative/libertarian wing of the Harvard student body. HJLPP is operated jointly with the Harvard Federalist Society and it openly bills itself as "The nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship." The authors of the subject piece are not affiliated with Harvard at all. Don Kates is affiliated with the Pacific Research Institute. Gary Mauser is affiliated with Simon Fraser University in Canada. Presume this piece to be an example of unbiased and independent analysis at your own risk.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are confusing apples with cinderblocks and wondering why you keep chipping your teeth on that hard grey pie filling.

Or in simple terms ... you don't have an intelligent reply .. okay . . I can accept that

 

[haymarket]

Or in simple terms ... you don't have an intelligent reply .. okay . . I can accept that

I have no idea what you think you are accepting. My position was clearly stated that you were confusing two very different things.

 

[Vallista]

This is a claim typically put forth by gun rights supporters in favor of looser gun restrictions. Essentially, the argument goes like this: Law-abiding citizens will, by definition, respect the law, so if some or all guns are illegal, they will not purchase them. By contrast, many criminals will, by definition, ignore gun laws, acquiring guns illegally. This would shift the balance of power in favor of criminals. So to level the playing field, there should be fewer restrictions on firearms.

If this statement is mostly false, then many gun rights supporters have a lot of explaining to do. It would mean that the claim is, for all intents and purposes, a lie and an instance of fear-mongering. And it would need to stop right away. Because suddenly, gun control supporters would have a much stronger case for restricting who can buy firearms and what kind of firearms can be purchased.

However, if this statement is mostly true, then that can mean only one thing: There is a large underground market for guns in the US, possibly on the same scale as the drug market. If so, I ask the question: What does it look like? How are all these guns getting onto the black market? Are they smuggled from abroad, are they made right here in the US--legally or illegally--or is it a little bit of both? All of these questions would have to be thoroughly answered before we can discuss remedies.

What do you think about this, and what is the evidence for your claim?

I say let them. their rights shouldn't be repress.

 

[SMTA]

..........-ed.